(un)Disciplined Subjects: Questioning IR and Academia (Gendering International Relations Working Group) Room: Room 8 International Relations (IR) has long been grappling with the issue of defining itself as a discipline. This has initiated important debates: while some aim to draw strict disciplinary boundaries, others expand the scope of the discipline with the aim to make it ‘truly’ global. The objective of this collective discussion is to explore the myriad of ways in which IR, including the debates on what IR as a discipline is/should be, is ‘disciplining’ scholar and student subjectivities. The discussion, first, explores formal/informal and explicit/implicit hierarchies that have been reproduced even in the critical circles. This discussion considers aspects of IR, including, the fetishization of the state and its gaze as well as broader structures of academia such as science, authority, and expertise, where these canon-building practices homogenise, silence, and exclude. Second, the discussion explores the discipline of IR and academia as a power structure where knowledge is commodified and made ‘useful’ for the policy-making sphere. Moreover, as different roles and identities are crafted and imposed on individuals within the academy, resistance to those roles and identities can be met with punitive consequences, stifling creativity. This collaborative practice, involving five facilitators and the audience, opens up the space for collective sharing of experiences and ideas to deal with the hierarchies in IR and power structures in academia.

'Jurisdictional Accumulation: an early modern history of law, empires, and capital' book launch (Historical Sociology and International Relations Working Group) Room: Room 3 This roundtable brings experts in law, history, and historical sociology to discuss Maia Pal's recent book *Jurisdictional Accumulation* (CUP, 2020). The majority of European early modern empires – the Castilian, French, Dutch, and English/British – developed practices of jurisdictional accumulation, distinguished by the three categories of extensions, transports, and transplants of authority. This book is concerned with various diplomatic and colonial agents which enabled the transports and transplants of sovereign authority. Through historical analyses of ambassadors and consuls in the Mediterranean based on primary and secondary material, and on the empires' Atlantic imperial expansions and conquests, the book makes a major analytical contribution to historical sociology. As an interdisciplinary exercise in conceptual innovation based on a Political Marxist framework and its concept of social property relations, the book goes beyond common binaries in both conventional and critical histories. The new concept of jurisdictional accumulation brings ambassadors, consuls, merchants, and lawyers out of the shadows of empire and onto the main stage of the construction of modern international relations and international law.

Exhibitor Hall Room: Conference Website

Coffee and conversation networking session - European Security WG Room: Room 10

Forgetting International Studies: the exclusion of Hispano-American contributions (Orphan Papers track) Room: Room 3 Panelists: -Dr. Jessica de Alba Ulloa presenting the international thought of José María Torres Caidedo (1830-1889), -Dr. Indra Labardini Fragoso presenting the international thought of Hermila Galindo (1886-1954), -Dr. Alberto Lozano Vazquez presenting the international though of Octavio Paz (1914-1998), -Dr. Carlos Gabriel Arguelles Arredondo presenting the international thought of Antonio Truyol y Sierra (1913-2003), -Dr. Almendra Ortiz de Zárate Béjarpresenting the international thought of Fernando Cardoso (1931-) Chair: -Dr. Jose Ricardo VIllanueva Lira During more than two decades, International Relations (IR) has experienced a fruitful historiographical turn. Despite that conventional narratives keep being pervasive in the teaching of the disciplinary history of IR, some of the foundational tenets of traditional stories have been indeed debunked through solid revisionist evidence that demonstrate the complexity of history of the (sub)discipline. Nevertheless, with rare exceptions, this important research has been primarily focused on the development of IR in the West, i.e. it is primarily Anglo-centric. Valuable studies have retrieved the lost contributions to international thought of forgotten theorists such as Paul Reinsch, Henry Brailsford, Harold Laski, among others. Less research, however, has been conducted on non-English speaking figures. This panel aims to highlight the often unknown international thought of several Hispano-American intellectuals, particularly of José María Torres Caidedo (1830-1889), Hermila Galindo (1886-1954), Octavio Paz (1914-1998), Antonio Truyol y Sierra (1913-2003) and Fernando Cardoso (1931-).

A Changing Global Nuclear Order (Global Nuclear Order Working Group) Room: Room 1 This panel asks us to reconsider some of our assumptions about the history and future of nuclear order and proposes a variety of approaches to do so - from mentoring initiatives, reinterpreting the boundaries inscribed by historical nuclear events, challenging core nuclear weapons institutions and reconsidering the idea of nuclear order itself.

Coffee and conversation networking sessions - FPWG; Peacekeeping and Peacebuilding WG Room: Room 10

(Structural) Forgetting? Secrecy, Ignorance and Power in International Studies (Post-Structural Politics Working Group) Room: Room 1 This panel sets out to explore the empirical and theoretical interconnections between cultures and practices of secrecy/ignorance/forgetting and ways of knowing in International Studies. While International Studies has attended to knowledge-making practices as connected to power, the extent to which secrecy and ignorance are part of knowledge-making and unmaking remains underexplored. This panel therefore proposes to bring into conversation insights from secrecy and ignorance studies to bear on the production of knowledge within International Studies, particularly in relation to the gendered, raced and queered ways in which knowledge is (un)made. This panel aims to ‘thicken’ the understanding of secrecy within security discourses and International Studies, disrupting and overturning binaries that continue to reproduce secrecy as absent and unproductive, that continue to focus on state level secrecy practices, that reproduce the association of knowledge with vision and virtue, and that ignore the contributions of feminist, critical race and queer theorists and their contributions to understanding power/knowledge as connected to secrecy.

Book roundtable: 'Global Justice and Social Conflict: The Foundations of Liberal Order and International Law' by Tarik Kochi (Ethics and World Politics Working Group) Room: Room 7 This roundtable brings together a group of experts to discuss the book *Global Justice and Social Conflict* by Tarik Kochi. Across the 20th and 21st centuries, liberalism, and increasingly neoliberalism, have dominated the construction and shape of the global political order, the global economy and international law. For some, this development has been directed by a vision of ‘global justice’. Yet, for many, the world has been marked by a history and continued experience of injustice, inequality, indignity, insecurity, poverty and war – a reality in which attempts to realise an idea of justice cannot be detached from acts of violence and widespread social conflict. In this book Tarik Kochi argues that to think seriously about global justice we need to understand how both liberalism and neoliberalism have pushed aside rival ideas of social and economic justice in the name of private property, individualistic rights, state security and capitalist ‘free’ markets. Ranging from ancient concepts of natural law and republican constitutionalism, to early modern ideas of natural rights and political economy, and to contemporary discourses of human rights, humanitarian war and global constitutionalism, Kochi shows how the key foundational elements of a now globalised political, economic and juridical tradition are constituted and continually beset by struggles over what counts as justice and over how to realise it.

Africa's changing international relations: new justifications, new forms of intervention (Africa and International Studies Working Group) Room: Room 1 In the years after 1989 African international relations was often analysed as a clash between international agencies and NGOS, on the one hand - who were bearers of international norms - and, on the other hand, African states -who were resisters of these norms. In different ways the papers in this panel challenge this understanding. They analyse African states own ideological projects, their contributions to peacekeeping norms and practices, the legitimation work of Chinese NGOS in Africa, and justifications for humanitarianism that go beyond the 'white saviour complex' alone.

A conversation with Professor Jenny Edkins, winner of BISA's 2021 Distinguished Contribution Prize

• Mark Webber (University of Birmingham)
• Ruth Blakeley (University of Sheffield)
• Jenny Edkins (University of Manchester)

Room: BISA Room

Coffee and conversation networking session - International Law WG; Russian and Eurasian Security WG; GIRWG; SE Europe WG; CPD WG; Global Health WG; PPWG; Ethics and World Politics WG; Nuclear Order WG; Interpretivism in IR WG Room: Room 10

(Re)Constructing to Govern: Security Praxis and the Production of Acceptable Citizenry (Critical Studies on Terrorism Working Group) Room: Room 1 Security praxis produces certain forms of desired citizenship. This panel critically assesses the practice of security policies around the world, and the implications for those on the other side of their gaze. Security operations and the imaginaries they generate, whether these exist in the pre-crime space (counter-radicalization programmes for instance), or whether the policies are targeted at protest groups (rubber bullets in Kashmir), allow only for limited forms of citizenry acceptable to the state. Where alternative subjectivities exist, these are striated and made governable through securitizing interventions. Protesters who are then blinded, marginalised Muslim communities who are then exposed to counter-radicalization programmes, or immigrants made vulnerable to NATO's military seaborne operations, make more malleable potential threats to govern. We find that certain forms of citizenship must be allowed to die, in order for security practices to make sense. Whether this is intentional, deliberate, capable protesters, or racialised communities (imagined to be) aggrieved at their exclusion from society, these groups are reconstructed into distinct and governable entities that can be understood and managed by the state. This panel ultimately points to the very tangible effects that the power of imagination in security politics produces.

Becoming Fluent in Fieldwork: (Un)learning What Is Good/Ethical/Responsible Fieldwork (Interpretivism in International Relations Working Group) Room: Room 6 This roundtable looks to disrupt the conventional understanding of doing good, ethical and responsible fieldwork (Sidaway 2000; Jazeel & McFarlane 2007; Mason, Brown & Pickerill 2012). We propose a conversation about the ongoingness of doing fieldwork and the politics of imagining different worlds that this entails. By foregrounding the processual nature of becoming fluent – rather than fluency – the roundtable engages with recent developments in international relations that conceptualise fieldwork as interpretive and always in flux in messy and processual ways (Eliasoph 2005; Carabelli and Deiana 2019; Kušić and Zahora 2020). Building on and further developing these interventions, the participants discuss two focal questions: 1. Given the proposed processual nature of fieldwork, how do we develop and maintain fieldwork fluency, understood as a continuous praxis of fieldwork? 2. How does becoming fluent shape our understanding of what good/ethical/responsible fieldwork is, and what are the different ways of negotiating this in our respective fields? Becoming fluent in fieldwork entails developing reflexive expertise: a process of continuous (un)learning, figuring out, of negotiating and relating – a balancing act between the planned and the unplanned (Cerwonka & Malkki 2007). This process entails negotiating and making decisions about what is good/ethical/responsible research, and how to navigate tensions between possible definitions (Ackerly & True 2008; Adedi Dunia et al. 2019). As we approach fieldwork as a continuous process in which we constantly work at our praxis, the roundtable critically interrogates how we (un)learn together with our research participants, beyond conventional understandings of ethics in field research (Torre et al. 2018; Nagar 2014). In sharing their journeys of becoming fluent in the field, the participants present reflexive and ongoing engagements with fieldwork as a continuous process that contributes to our understanding of academic, individual and collective efforts to negotiate research ethics, practices of care and fieldwork praxis. References Ackerly, Brooke, and Jacqui True. 2008. “Reflexivity in Practice: Power and Ethics in Feminist Research on International Relations.” International Studies Review, 10 (4), 693-707. Adedi Dunia, Oscar et al. 2019. “Moving Out of the Backstage: How Can We Decolonize Research.” The Disorder of Things, 22 Oct. 2019, https://thedisorderofthings.com/2019/10/22/moving-out-of-the-backstage-how-can-we-decolonize-research/#_ednref3. Carabelli, Giulia, and Maria Adriana Deiana. 2019. “Researching in Proximity to War. A Love Story.” Journal of Narrative Politics 5 (2): 91-101. Cerwonka, Allaine, and Liisa H. Malkki. 2008. Improvising Theory: Process and Temporality in Ethnographic Fieldwork. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Eliasoph, Nina. 2005. “Theorizing from the Neck Down: Why Social Research Must Understand Bodies Acting in Real Space and Time (and Why It’s So Hard to Spell Out What We Learn from This.” Qualitative Sociology 28 (2): 159-169. Jazeel, Tariq and Colin McFarlane. 2007. Responsible Learning: Cultures of Knowledge Production and the North-South Divide. Antipode, 39, 781-789. Kušić, Katarina, and Jakub Záhora, eds. 2020. Living and Knowing in the Field (of IR), E-IR. Mason, Kelvin, Gavin Brown and Jenny Pickerill. 2012. Epistemologies of Participation, or, What Do Critical Human Geographers Know That’s of Any Use? Antipode, 42 (2), 252-255. Nagar, Richa. 2014. Muddying the Waters: Coauthoring Feminisms Across Scholarship and Activism. Urbana, Chicago, Springfield: University of Illinois Press. Sidaway, James. 2000. Recontextualising Positionality: Geographical Research and Academic Fields of Power. Antipode, 32 (3), 260-270. Torre, M. E, Stoudt, B. G., Manoff, E. and M. Fine. 2018. “Critical Participatory Action Research on State Violence: Bearing Wit(h)ness across Fault Lines of Power, Privilege and Dispossession,” in The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research (5th edition), edited by N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln, 492-515. California: Sage Publications.